Talk:Phantom cat

Shouldn this rather be "Phantom cat", or do they always come in packs? ;-= --Magnus Manske 19:02 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

Wasn't there an unknown species of wild cat caught sometime during the early 1990s? Possibly a hybrid of Felis silvestris and Felis cattus. // Liftarn

I have noticed the use of ABC (Alien big cat) used instead of "phantom cat". Perhaps we shouls use that instead of the more "mysterious" sounding "phantom cat". // Liftarn

I'm researching phantom cats/alien big cats for a class, and it seems to me that "alien big cats" is more commonly used. --Sgkat (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The state of Hawaii uses the term "mystery big cat". I would like to add information on Hawaii to this page. --Thomas Veil 07:23 Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Occasional large cats are captured or killed, but it would be assumed they were one-off escapes from zoos etc., were it not for one major complicating factor: The Dangerous Wild Animals Act of 1976.

I don't understand this, can somebody help repair? Sam [Spade] 18:30, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It looks like the U.K. Dangerous Wild Animals Act allowed for private ownership of big cats. I'm looking into it.--Viriditas 22:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I finally figured it out. People released their pets into the wild after the Dangerous Wild Animals Act was passed. --Viriditas 10:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see.. Good edits! So... if there is such an obvious and rational explanation, why the "phantom cats" and "Alien Big Cats" title? Also there used to be some content about cats from other dimensions slipping in and out of reality, or some such ;) Sam [Spade] 12:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, as you can probably tell, these informal classifications are usually spread by laymen through the media, which make for good headlines, but less than objective naming systems. However, even biologists have not agreed upon a standard term. You can read about this debate on the introduced species page. --Viriditas 12:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Very interesting... I found this via cryptozoology (Beast of Bodmin, Beast of Exmoor etc...) however, so I am rather dismayed to find such mundane soloutions ;) Sam [Spade] 15:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The difference between these sightings and the ones on the cryptozoology page, is that there is good (but not great) evidence for these big cats in many cases. --Viriditas 21:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure seems like it. Sam [Spade] 21:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The thing is, you are absolutely right about the problems with the title for this page. But, since no standard classification exists, there is as of yet, no good reason to choose one title over another, however, it would be neat to present arguments for proposed titles. In Maui, we use the term, "Mystery Big Cat". --Viriditas 10:43, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See User_talk:Sam_Spade#Phantom_cats

This list represents a description of an introduced species, often non-native, and rarely invasive. Ordered by google hits:

    2,910 hits:  Alien big cats 
    1,210 hits:  Wild big cats 
    1,060 hits:  Exotic big cats        Australia
      819 hits:  Phantom panthers       North America
      667 hits:  Phantom cats           
      175 hits:  Mystery big cats       U.S.
       87 hits:  Phantom wild cat       U.K.
        6 hits:  Introduced big cats
        0 hits:  Cryptozoological cats 

Please add to this list, if you can. --Viriditas 20:05, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't think anybodys reading. What term for these beasties (real or imagined) is most used? Thats the term we ought to be using for the article, so as to help the readers find it. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 23:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've added google hits to the above list. Note, this is only a preliminary google test, and does not reflect accuracy of usage. I think it's pretty neat to see how the current title came in directly between the other titles. I suppose that would make it NPOV, but not necessarily accurate. Heh. --Viriditas 00:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current title, in tandem with the current redirect from "Alien big cat", but perhaps switching these roles would be better. Since usage seems to depend greatly on geographical location, adding redirects for the rest of the top five or six names would help people find the article. Avenue 12:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done. --Viriditas | Talk 20:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sightings of exotic big cats in Australia began more than 100 years ago.

In the Gippsland region of south-eastern Victoria, the origin of the cats is claimed to be American World War II airmen who brought cougars with them as mascots and released them in the Australian Bush. No conclusion has been reached, and photographic evidence is often difficult to interpret. The mass slaughter of sheep is often given as evidence to support the big cat theory. They are often killed by a clean puncture or slit in the throat. The animals' insides are then eaten precisely and with no mess, in the same way a big cat kills and eats its prey.

Whilst I aknowledge the Gippsland issue, the fact there is no airbase there makes it seem less likely as the origin point of the above story, however the above story is the reasoning behind the 'Penrith Panthers' released at RAAF Richmond from American WWII airmen who were stationed there, allegedly. It's Penrith's mascot, it's football team, and a very well known story across all of New South Wales. I'd recommend an ammendment, based upon googlefight.com's figures: -

"Penrith Panther" - 1250 "Penrith Panthers" - 124,000 "Penrith Cat" - 6 (!) (might include cat clubs, or something?)

vs

"Gippsland Cat" - 62 (might include cat clubs, or something?) "Gippsland Cougar" - 0 "Gippsland Tiger" - 7 "Gippsland ABC" - 105 (remember, ABC is Australian Broadcasting Corporation too.  :/) "Gippsland Alien Big Cat" - 0

Totals: -

Penrith: 125,256 Gippsland: 174

Take into account that Gippsland is a region and Penrith a city, you'd assume a broader scope would yield a broader response. I'm really starting to take the stance that the original editor who attributed the ABC of Australia section to their locale perhaps? Jachin 12:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just want to say that the conclusion that American airmen potentially brought LIVE COUGARS with them to Australia is one of the dumbest single suggestions in the history of history... a live cougar... Not to mention that it's been illegal to hold large cats as "pets" in the USA for a century... I'm guessing the US Military wasn't going to circumvent US Law in order to appease a flyboy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.186.183.217 (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I removed the following link farm from the article per WP:EL. If any of these prove to be reliable sources, editors should feel free to return sourced content back to the article. See WP:CITE for instructions. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

This wasn't a link farm, RedPenOfDoom. Rather, it was a list of links used as references in this article. You need to be a little bit more flexible in your perspective on things. Since you only started editing on Wikipedia on 14:35, 5 November 2007, you may not be aware that the use of inline citations is fairly recent in Wiki time, and that this article was composed before they became widely used. In other words, most of the material you removed, especially the Hawaii section, was sourced directly to the external link section. This was actually common at one time (Gary Webb is another older article that reflects the same style). And to the editor who tagged the Hawaii section with an OR tag, that's simply not how the tag is used. I'm glad to see the section was restored in its entirety. I hope you take these things into consideration when you edit older articles in the future. There's a big picture here, and not everything is black and white. There's a lot of articles that require inline citations, but have much of their material sourced to the external link section. Adding OR tags and declaring the external link section a "link farm" is oversimplification at worst, and laziness at best. This seems to be a pattern on Wikipedia. It's easier to add tags and delete content than it is to check links and add inline citations. It's really sad. Viriditas (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Australian article from the Sydney Morning Herald
• Australian map of sightings near Sydney from the Sydney Morning Herald
• [1] The Big Cat Files
• [2] Australian Big Cats website
• [3] Big Cat Articles - Paul Clacher
• [4] Big Cat Witnesses
• [5] Australian big Cats-Gippsland Phantom Cat

• The Beast of Funen

• List of sightings in New Zealand
• NZ Herald: MAF staff, wildlife experts hunt big black cat in vain
• Ashburton Guardian: An unsolved mystery

• Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976
• Photographic evidence of possible big cat in Gloucestershire (2008)
• September 2004 - Family Claims "Big Cat" Caught on Film
• Video
• January 2003 attack
• BBC report
• http://www.britishbigcats.org/
• {{dmoz|Science/Anomalies_and_Alternative_Science/Cryptozoology/Big_Cats/|Cryptozoology/Big Cats}}

• Delaware
• Hawaiian Status Report on the Mystery Big Cat
• Expert to Train Hawaii DLNR in Safe Capture Snaring Techniques

Many of these links are plainly direct sources for much of the information you have deleted. Sure, the article could have used a little tidying up (and I'll make a start on that), but your wholesale deletions without giving any warning were not appropriate. -- Avenue (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article had been tagged for needing clean up since July at least: See the tag at the top of the article here before I started editing. I do not consider a six month notice period "abrupt" or "without warning". Per our verifiability policy, it is up to the editor wishing to include material to provide the proper sourcing, not just dump a bunch of links at the bottom of the page. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

As I said in our discussion on my talk page, that general citation cleanup tag provides no excuse for wholesale deletion. It says that someone thought more inline citations would improve the article, not that three quarters of the article should be deleted if they're not forthcoming. The bulk of the article was sourced, and should not have been summarily deleted. -- Avenue (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

This section should be removed. 1) It was a wolf, not a cat at all. 2) the source does not describe it as a "phantom cat" or "ABC" - inclusion is WP:SYN. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The source does say that before it was shot, it was described as a tiger, i.e. a big cat, and says that this was seen as unusual. I don't see including this sighting in the phantom cat article as advancing a novel position, so I don't believe it violates WP:SYN.

I agree the animal was not actually a cat. This is a clear example of a reported phantom cat sighting that turned out to be based on mistaken identity. I believe it's useful for our article cover cases like these as well as cases where the sighting was confirmed to be correct, or where no outcome was reached. If we censor them, we could foster an incorrect impression about the accuracy of phantom cat sightings. -- Avenue (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think WP:SYN may hinge on whether or not "phantom cat" is simply a WP:FRINGE terminology. I would like to actually see some reliable source using that term preferably with some type of definition. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not wedded to the term - I suggested above that "alien big cat" was probably a better title for the page. A Dictionary of English Folklore, from Oxford University Press, seems to have an entry for "alien big cat", although its focus seems confined to the UK (naturally enough). -- Avenue (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

After reading this article, I was completely baffled. I put up this template:

I still have no idea what the heck this article is about.

Pisharov (talk)

Yes, I agree. There seems to be one throwaway line to the effect that this entire subject is consider pseudoscience by mainstream science. That is totally insufficient. If that is the case, this article gives massively undue weight to a fringe view. It aught to report on the fringe belief in "alien big cats" as opposed to advocating their existence. I'm therefore adding an neutrality flag as well. Locke9k (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Such is cryptozoology where there's no body to be found Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Putting a citation needed tag after the opening sentence is the absolute worst in wikipedian passive-aggression and pettiness. If anyone seriously disputes that the subject of this article is large felines appearing in anomalous places, feel free to bring it up on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.57.37 (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

"the study of Phantom Cats is considered by mainstream science to constitute pseudoscience or fringe science. In general, scientists reject the possibility that such mega-fauna cryptids exist,"

This (the attitude of most scientists) is probably true; but the evidence does not suggest that they are correct.

See Darren Naish's posts: http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/02/british-big-cats-how-good-or-bad-is.html http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/08/cupar-roe-deer-carcass.html

Naish states that "As someone trying to gain a reputation as a credible scientist, it is not in my interest to declare my fascination with ABCs and related subjects. This is generally regarded, especially in academic circles, as a crackpot area inhabited only by the lunatic fringe. Unfortunately this stigma – accentuated by the half-serious, sensationalised way the subject is treated by journalists – has tarnished what is actually a perfectly sensible area for which good scientific data exists."

I know blog posts aren't considered good sources, but Darren Naish's blog is better researched than nearly all popular science books or magazine articles (and in fact, many of them are published in book form now -- I believe the British big cats posts are included in 'Tetrapod Zoology Book One' -- so we could use that as a source).

The keeping of exotic cats is not particularly rare, and there is nothing really all that implausible about some escaping into the wild. Vultur (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Sighting of the Phantom Cat crossing an intersection going into the mountains at 9:11 Maui time on the 6th of January 2011." in the hawaii section. is this just an uncited news report? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.221.42 (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

is there such a thing? because I can't find anything on it? I assume it is another name for a subspecies of grey wolf, but which one I can't find. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

The conclusion about the Cat on Maui is flat out wrong. Five people out of eight in our party (two separate cars) saw the animal as we were driving down the mountain, near Olinda. The trapper hired to capture the animal concluded it was a large Cat and that it either died or it returned to its owner/keeper. Yes they never caught the animal but there was plenty of evidence that it had been out running around the Olinda area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.248.5 (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I suspect that it returned to its owner. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I don't have an account and I'm not sure if I'm posting in the correct place, but I was curious why there is no mention of the mysterious tiger that was shot and killed in the foothills north of Los Angeles Feb 2006? I actually came across this wiki article while researching that. Seems worth noting here since it was never determined where the heck the tiger came from.

ABCs spotted in the Phoenix Park? Thats interesting but do we actually have a reference? Angrybeerman (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

May I propose that the Blue Mountains Panther article be deleted? It is only a one-sentence article, and the external links listed are all dead. I think that this would contribute to making the main article less unbalanced. --Sgkat (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The second link for the the Netherlands section is also dead, I found it on archive.org but I'm not sure how to add the archive link. My question is mostly should I use a different citation template or just remove the original source? The archive URL is http://web.archive.org/web/20070310203141/http://www.zibb.nl/nieuws/opmerkelijk/nieuwsbericht/asp/artnr/1023738/versie/1/ which should supplement the citation of http://www.zibb.nl/nieuws/opmerkelijk/nieuwsbericht/asp/artnr/1023738/versie/1/. PinkShinyRose (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Phantom cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111003213803/http://www.cougarnet.org/delaware_cougar_confirmations.html to http://www.cougarnet.org/delaware_cougar_confirmations.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Phantom cat/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 15:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 02:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Phantom cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.smh.com.au/media/2003/11/02/1067597215449.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/21795691/Massale_belangstelling_voor_poemajacht.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://tageblatt.editpress.lu/luxembourg/33971.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111103103707/https://www.australianbigcats.com.au/ to http://www.australianbigcats.com.au/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phantom cat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014081613/http://www.mysteriousnewzealand.co.nz/mysteries_strangeness/animals/bigcats/canterburybigcat.html to http://www.mysteriousnewzealand.co.nz/mysteries_strangeness/animals/bigcats/canterburybigcat.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply